ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Climate change induced adaptation by paddy farmersin Malaysia

Md. Mahmudul Alam & Chamhuri Siwar &

Mohd Ekhwan bin Toriman & Rafiqul Islam Molla &

Basri Talib

Received: 11 April 2011 /Accepted: 14 August 2011 /Published online: 26 August 2011# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract The climatic factors are changing very rapidly in Malaysia. For the farmers toadapt with the changes, government and other external agencies are providing severalsupports. But still there is a gap between farmers’ adaptability with climate change andcurrent level of supports. This study uses descriptive statistics, ordinal regression, andpercentile analysis to measure the level of farmers’ adaptability to climate change as a resultof the various existing supports and encouragements provided by the government and otherexternal agencies, and new supports expected by farmers. The data were collected throughquestionnaire survey on 198 paddy producing farmers in the area of Integrated AgriculturalDevelopment Area (IADA), North-West Selangor, Malaysia. The study found that among

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186DOI 10.1007/s11027-011-9319-5

M. M. Alam (*) : C. SiwarInstitute for Environment and Development (LESTARI), National University of Malaysia (UKM), 43600UKM Bangi, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysiae-mail: rony000@gmail.com

C. Siware-mail: csiwar@ukm.my

M. M. AlamIntegrated Education and Research Foundation, 41/2 Purana Paltan, Dhaka, Bangladesh

M. E. bin TorimanSchool of Social, Development & Environmental Studies (FSSK), National University of Malaysia(UKM), 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysiae-mail: ikhwan@ukm.my

R. I. MollaFaculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysiae-mail: rimolla@gmail.com

B. TalibFaculty of Economics and Business, National University of Malaysia (UKM), 43600 UKM Bangi,Selangor, Malaysiae-mail: basri@ukm.my

current types of supports provided by different agencies, only farmers’ accessibility inthe market is statistically significant for influencing their current adaptability to climaticchanges. Though 58.6% of the farmers agree that government supports are enough tocope properly with climate change, 12.1% of farmers are not able to cope with climatechange with the current level of supports. Farmers’ expectations of several newsupports has no statistically significant influences on their current adaptability withclimatic changes, but their priority ranking for these expected supports will helppolicymakers to determine the future supports for climatic change adaptation foragriculture sustainability and livelihood sustainability under adverse climatic changesscenarios, especially for Malaysia.

Keywords Agricultural productivity . Climate change . Adaptation . Paddy . Malaysia

1 Introduction

Currently, Malaysia, with a population of about 27 million, is the 26th largest greenhousegas emitter in the world. It may move up the list quickly due to the growth rate of emissionsin the country. Due to high greenhouse gas emissions the temperature is projected to rise by0.3–4.5°C. Warmer temperature will cause sea level to rise by about 95 cm over a hundred-year period. The changes in rainfall may fluctuate from about −30 to +30%. This changewill reduce crop yield and cause drought in many areas so that cultivation of some cropssuch as rubber, oil palm, and cocoa will not be possible (NRS 2001). The projection showsmaximum monthly precipitation will increase up to 51% in Pahang, Kelantan andTerengganu, and the minimum precipitation will decrease by 32–61% for the entirePeninsular Malaysia. Consequently, annual rainfall will increase by 10% in Kelantan,Terengganu, Pahang and North-West Coast and decrease by 5% in Selangor and Johor(NAHRIM 2006). This variation of climatic factors will cause the agricultural system to bevulnerable in Malaysia.

The average temperature in the rice growing areas is about 26°C in Malaysia. Undercurrent climate change scenario, temperature above 25°C may cause decline in grain massby 4.4% per 1°C rise in temperature (Tashiro and Wardlaw 1989) and grain yield maydecline as much as 9.6 - 10.0% per 1°C rise (Baker and Allen 1993). Singh et al. (1996)shows that the actual farm yield of paddy rice in Malaysia vary from 3-5 tons per hectare,when the potential yield is 7.2 tons. They also says that there is a decline of rice yieldbetween 4.6 and 6.1% per 1°C temperature increase under the present CO2 level, but adoubling of CO2 concentration (from present level of 340–680 ppm) may offset thedetrimental effect up to 4°C temperature increase on rice production in Malaysia. In a recentstudy it is found that a 1% increase in temperature leads to a 3.44% decrease in currentpaddy yield and 0.03% decrease in paddy yield in next season, and a 1% increase in rainfallleads to 0.12% decrease in current paddy yield and 0.21% decrease of paddy yield in nextseason (Alam et al. 2010c).

Tisdell (1996) finds that rainfall variability increases the level of environmental stressthat affects the capability of the system to maintain productivity. It is projected that anychange in rainfall, both positive and negative, by more than only 0.4% by 2020 will causedecline in yield of paddy production in Malaysia (NRS 2001). Alam et al. (2011a)indicates that total yearly rainfall in Malaysia is increasing and its monthly variation istoo high. The effect of lower rainfall can be checked through proper irrigation system, butthe opposite phenomenon of over rainfall for any particular time, especially at the end of

174 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186

the crop cycle or at the maturity period that causes serious damages to crops, is absolutelyuncontrollable.

The climatic factors affect, directly or indirectly, the social and economic sustainabilityof the farmers. Climate changes cause crop damages, low productivity and highproduction cost leading to income losses for farmers, increase their poverty level, andincrease their seasonal unemployment rate (Siwar et al. 2009; Alam et al. 2010d,2011b, c). This is because the farmers are dependent on agriculture. In Malaysia, the mostpossible vulnerable states in terms of poverty rates are Sabah (23%), Terengganu (15.4%),Kelantan (10.6%), Sarawak (7.5%), Kedah (7%), Perlis (6.3%) and Perak (4.9%), wherethe projected temperature and rainfall changes are also very high (Malaysia 2006;NAHRIM 2006). It is also observed that the most vulnerable groups of people are thepoor engaged in agricultural activities and having relatively larger number of householdmembers (NRS 2001).

As climate change is a continuous and long term process, its effects and solutions aresimilarly time and effort consuming process. Most of the warming during the next 30 yearswill be due to emissions that have already occurred. Over the longer term, the degree andpace of warming mainly depend on current and near future emissions (Stern 2007). Inrecent years, adaptation has gained prominence as an important response measure,especially for vulnerable countries. It has become clear that some impacts are nowunavoidable in the short to medium term. According to IPCC (2001), adaptation refers to“adjustments in ecological, social or economic systems in response to actual or expectedstimuli and their effects or impacts. This term refers to changes in processes, practices andstructures to moderate potential damages or to benefit from opportunities associated withclimate change”. It outlines few basic principles: adaptation to short-term climate variabilityand extreme events for reducing vulnerability to long-term climate change; adaptationpolicy and measures assessed in a developmental context; adaptation occurs at differentlevels in society, including the local level; adaptation strategy and the process by which it isimplemented are equally important. According to UNDP (2005), “A climate changeadaptation strategy for a country refers to a general plan of action for addressing theimpacts of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. It may include a mixof policies and measures, selected to meet the overarching objective of reducing thecountry’s vulnerability.”

Adaptation strategies for the vulnerable groups are crucial because failure to adapt couldlead them suffer from to “significant deprivation, social disruption and populationdisplacement and even morbidity and mortality” (Downing et al. 1997). The most criticalproblem is to identify the appropriate adaptation policies that favour the most vulnerablegroups. Policy makers should be mindful of the fact that adaptation strategies for climatechange may not ensure equal benefits for all areas and groups of people; and a win-winsituation among stakeholders is unlikely. In many cases it is faced with situations ofconflicting interest among groups. IPCC (2001) mentioned few issues while referred toadaptation assessment as “practice of identifying options to adapt to climate change andevaluating them in terms of criteria such as availability, benefits, costs, effectiveness,efficiency and feasibility”. Policy makers also need to focus on the determinants ofadaptation capacity that have been suggested by Yohe and Tol (2001) as: the range ofavailable technological options for adaptation; the availability of resources and theirdistribution across the population; the structure of critical institutions, the derivativeallocation of decision-making authority, and the decision criteria that would beemployed; the stock of human capital, including education and personal security; thestock of social capital, including the definition of property rights; the system’s access

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186 175

to risk-spreading processes, e.g., insurance; the ability of decision makers to manageinformation, the processes by which these decision-makers determine whichinformation is credible and the credibility of the decision-makers, themselves, andthe public’s perceived attribution of the source of stress and the significance ofexposure to its local manifestations.

In the planning processes, policy makers need to take account of the barriers toadaptation including ecological, financial, institutional, and technological barriers, aswell as information and cognitive hurdles. Other few important issues need to befocused upon, such as stakeholders may not sufficiently be informed about the needsand possible strategies of climate change (Eisenack and Kropp 2006; Eisenack et al.2007), farm level faces uncertain future which hinders the development process andposes as obstacle the implementation of adaptations policy (Behringer et al. 2000;Brown et al. 2007), and the policy deals with different conflicting interest groups. Policymakers also need to understand the impact of climate change on changing socioeconomiccondition.

In Malaysia, the Second National Agricultural Policy (1992–1997) was revised in 1998,to emphasize on the impacts of climate change; and the Third National Agricultural Policy(1998–2010) recognised this fact. Provisions of necessary incentives and initiatives wereincorporated in these plans to achieve the goal of maximizing income of the stakeholdersthrough optimal utilization of resources. Due to the adverse effects of the climatic factors onagriculture in Malaysia, income stabilization and poverty reduction program among thefarming community is under threat. So, to ensure the sustainability of the agriculture andthe livelihood, adaptation with climatic changes is very essential. Currently government andnongovernment sectors are providing several supports, incentives, and subsidy; but theempirical measurement of the adequacy of these supports is missing in the literature.Therefore, this study is an attempt to measure the influence of external supports, likesubsidy, incentive, training, and other supports, etc. provided by government, NGOs andothers, on farmers’ adaptability to climate changes. This study also tries to identify differenttypes of new supports, beyond the existing supports that farmers expect for adaption toclimate changes, and its linkage with the current adaptability of the farmers.

2 Data, model and methodology

To determine the climate change adaptation of the farmers in Malaysia, this studyrelies on primary data from a research project entitled “The economics of climatechange: Economic dimensions of climate change, impacts and adaptation practices inagriculture sector: Case of paddy sector in Malaysia”, conducted by the Institute forEnvironment and Development (LESTARI) of the National University of Malaysia(UKM) funded by Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment of theGovernment of Malaysia (Alam et al. 2010a). Data for this project were collectedthrough a sample survey of paddy producing farmers in the eight sections of theIntegrated Agricultural Development Area (IADA) of North-West Selangor, Malaysia(Fig. 1). Geographically the agricultural land of IADA in North-West Selangor covers anarea of 100,000 hectare (ha), with 55,000 ha used for palm oil, 20,000 ha for coconut,5,000 ha for fruits and vegetables and 20,000 ha for paddy. This 20,000 ha for the paddyarea include major rivers, i.e. Sungai Sireh and Sungai Karang, a 75 km irrigation system,and other infrastructures. The total paddy producible area is 18,638 ha, and currentlypaddy is planted on 18,355 ha. Total paddy irrigated area is 18,980 ha, with the additional

176 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186

625 ha being used for drainage. There are a total of 10,300 paddy farmers and 30,000other crops producers. The total size of the agricultural community is 50,000.

The survey was conducted by regular enumerators of the IADA authority using astructured questionnaire under the direct supervision of IADA officials. The population sizeof the area was 10,300 while the sample for the study consisted of 198 respondentsproportionately distributed among the eight areas based on the size of the irrigated landarea. The 198 households covered 577.53 ha of paddy areas. The sample within the area isselected randomly. Details of socioeconomic profiles of the respondents are available atAlam and others (2010a, b).

To measure farmers’ abilities to adapt with climate change, this study uses a 5-pointscale with 1 as very low and 5 as very high adaptability. To determine the statisticalrelationships between the climate change adaptability of the farmers and currently availableexternal supports, this study runs ordered dependent regression/ordinal regression (Eq. 1).

Q1 ¼ 41S1 þ 42S2 þ 43S3 þ44S4 þ "i ð1ÞHere, Q1 = Farmers’ capability to adapt with climate change; S1 = Government supports

are enough to cope with climate change effect; S2 = NGO (non-governmental organization)supports are enough to cope with climate change effect; S3 = Other agencies’ supports areenough to cope with climate change effect; S4 = Market support as availability of additionalfertilizers in the market; Ω = Coefficient of respective explanatory variable; εi =Independent and identically distributed random variables.

Based on the current adaptability of the farmers, this study further looks at othersupports that they expect to improve their ability to adapt with climatic changes. Smit andSkinner (2002) mentioned that the options for agricultural adaptation could be grouped astechnological developments, government programs, farm production practices, and farmfinancial management. Alam et al. (2010e) also provided a guideline to consider foradaptation policy in Malaysia. Here, these options are broadly considered to determine the

Fig. 1 Location of study area, IADA in North-West Selangor, Malaysia

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186 177

required supports based on farmers perceptions by using a 5-point scale with 1 as very lowand 5 as very highly needed for adaptation. To determine the statistical relationshipsbetween the current adaptability of the farmers and required external supports to cope withclimate change, this study runs another ordered dependent regression/ordinal regression(Eq. 2).

Q2 ¼ "1V1 þ "2V2 þ "3V3 þ "4V4 þ "5V5 þ "6V6 þ "7V7 þ "8V8 þ "9V9

þ "10V10 þ "11V11 þ "12V12 þ "13V13 þ "14V14 þ "15V15 þ 2i ð2Þ

Here, Q2 = Farmers’ capability to adapt to climate change; V1 = Water managementinnovations is required to cope with climate change effect; V2 = Irrigation systeminnovations is required to cope with climate change effect; V3 = Moisture deficiencyrelevant innovations is required to cope with climate change effect; V4 = Crop developmentis required to cope with climate change effect; V5 = Early warning about weather andclimate information is required to cope with climate change effect; V6 = Daily and seasonalweather forecasts is required to cope with climate change effect; V7 = Proper guidelines orsuggestion is required to cope with climate change effect; V8 = Raw materials subsidy isrequired to cope with climate change effect; V9 = Cash incentive is required to cope withclimate change effect; V10 = Insurance support is required to cope with climate changeeffect; V11 = Infrastructural support, such as irrigation, transportation is required to copewith climate change effect; V12 = Diversify crop types and varieties is required to cope withclimate change affect; V13 = Adjustment in land use pattern is required to cope with climatechange effect; V14 = Adjustment in wage and leasing system is required to cope withclimate change effect; V15 = Merge individual farmers to farm is required to cope withclimate change effect; β = Coefficient of respective explanatory variable; μi = Independentand identically distributed random variables.

3 Government’s supports for adaptation

Currently the Government of Malaysia is providing large amount of subsidy to the paddyproducers to encourage paddy cultivation and to ensure more production for increasing thecountry’s self-sufficiency level. The types and contents of these subsidies have beensummarized below:

& Input subsidy: 12 bags (20 kg each) of compound fertilizer and four bags (20 kg each)urea fertilizer per hectare—worth USD$133, and pesticide incentive USD$66 perhectare.

& Price Subsidy: Provided at the selling price—USD$82.7 per ton.& Rice Production Incentive: Land preparation/plowing incentive—USD$33 per hectare

and organic fertilizer 100 kg per hectare—worth USD$46.& Yield Increase Incentive: Provided if producers (farmers) are able to produce 10 t or

more per hectare—USD$216 per ton.& Free Supports: Free supports for irrigation, infrastructure, and water supply.

In order to support the farmers to increase productivity and increase income,government’s subsidy for agricultural sector is increasing each year (Table 1). The subsidiesfor urea and compound fertilizer have been continuing since 1979. The incentives for landpreparation and using organic fertilizer have been continuing since 2007. Providing the

178 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186

package of compound and urea fertilizers and pesticide incentives was introduced in 2008and is still continuing (Alam et al. 2011d).

4 Current supports and farmers’ adaptability to climate change

On the issue of availability of external supports, most farmers were found not aware of thecurrent supports provided by external parties to adapt to climate change. 58.6% of thefarmers agreed that government supports were enough to cope properly with climatechange. But still 12.1% reported that they could not cope with climate change with thecurrent level of external supports. 29.3% farmers did not respond to this question. 52.5%farmer mentioned about the supports from NGO, and 49.5% mentioned about the supportsfrom other external agencies to be enough to cope with current climate change. Butinterestingly many farmers were not sure about what sorts of supports they receive fromthese agencies (Table 2). Basically NGOs provide very little supports. Their supportsinclude small scale training and experimental plot to test the productivity rate.

According to 75.3% of the farmers, the fertilizer provided by the government was enough forpaddy production. This indicates that these farmers never use extra fertilizer except the fullysubsidized quantity. Beyond the free fertilizers, extra fertilizers were available in the market asreported by 60.1% of the farmers. But 16.7% claimed that extra fertilizers were not available inthe market or they did not have enough access in the market.

To check the reason for the differing farmers’ ability to adapt to climate change, thisstudy ran regression based on ordinal data. This model, where farmers’ ability is dependenton external supports, did not show a good fit of model due to high p-value (0.27) of LR stat(Table 3). However, among different types of external supports, at 3% significance level,only market showed significant impacts on farmers’ ability to adapt to climate change. Theodd ratio was 1.166, which is closed to the value of not important. That means farmerssignificantly believe that buying additional fertilizer from market is not important for theircurrent adaptation ability with climate change.

Under the IADA the most influential external supports were same for all the farmers, such asgovernment subsidy and incentives. Therefore, the influences of these supports on farmers’adaptation capacity were the same for all. Only for the access in market - indicates buyingfertilizer, pesticides and other necessaries from market - differed from farmers to farmers.

Table 1 Government subsidy (in USD$) for paddy sector in Malaysia

Items 2004 2005 2006 2007

Subsidy For Paddy Price 158,876,101 147,739,347 148,583,299 148,000,000

Paddy Fertilizers 62,248,289 59,357,358 132,131,000 87,225,914

Paddy Production Incentive NA NA NA 22,521,301

Yield Increase Incentive NA NA NA 28,478,207

Paddy Seed Help NA NA NA 5,666,667

Diesel Subsidy Scheme NA NA 329,909,139 366,333,574

Petrol NA NA 15,137,986 23,153,795

Total Subsidy and Incentive 221,124,390 207,096,705 625,761,425 681,379,458

NA means data are not found available; Exchange Rate is considered as USD$1 = MYR3

Agriculture Statistical Handbook 2008

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186 179

5 Required supports and farmers’ adaptability to climate change

Farmers expect several types of external supports to cope properly with the changes inclimatic factors. To check the relationship between farmers’ ability to adapt and requiredexternal supports to adapt to climate change this study ran ordinal regression. The P-value(.000038) of LR stat showed a very good fit of the model. The output of the regressionshowed that, among several types of external supports, farmers significantly neededmoisture deficiency related innovations, crop development, cash incentive, infrastructuralsupports, and adjustment in wage, and leasing system to adapt to climate change (Table 4).However, the necessity of extra supports in respects of their current ability to adapt showedvary low odd ratio, indicating that these supports were not influencing the farmers’ currentadaptation ability. These supports might be related with their future adaptation ability.Individual requirement analysis will give a clearer picture in this regard.

Table 2 Available external supports for adaptation to climate change

Types of supports Observation scalea Averagevalue ofscale

S.D. Agreed(4 & 5)respondent

Disagreed(1 & 2)respondent1 2 3 4 5

Government Supportsare Enough to Copethe Climate ChangeEffect

6 18 58 44 72 3.8 1.12 116 82

3% 9.1% 29.3% 22.2% 36.4% 58.6% 12.1%

NGO Supports areEnough to Copethe Climate ChangeEffects

10 30 54 43 61 3.58 1.21 104 94

5.1% 15.2% 27.3% 21.7% 30.8% 52.5% 20.2%

Other Agencies’Supports are Enoughto Cope the ClimateChange Effects

5 18 77 57 41 3.56 1 98 100

2.5% 9.1% 38.9% 28.8% 20.7% 49.5% 11.6%

Free Fertilizer fromGovernment isEnough forProduction of Paddy

6 15 28 62 87 4.06 1.08 149 49

3.0% 7.6% 14.1% 31.3% 43.9% 75.3% 10.6%

Additional Fertilizersare available tobuy from market

13 20 46 55 64 3.69 1.21 119 79

6.6% 10.1% 23.2% 27.8% 32.3% 60.1% 16.7%

a Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = No Comment, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree

Table 3 Statistical output (Eq. 1) for farmers ability of adaptation on currently available external supports

Independent variables Coefficient (Ω) z-stat P-value Odd ratio

S1 0.0247 0.089 0.782 1.025

S2 −0.063 0.095 0.509 0.939

S3 −0.027 0.116 0.816 0.973

S4 0.153^ 0.070 0.028 1.166

The notation ^ indicates the variable is statistically significant at the 5% significance level

The Odd ratio is calculated as (e^β )

180 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186

As the needs of farmers differ from farmer to farmer, more in-depth and specificrequirement is possible to measure by categorical and individual type of variable analysis.Among all types of resource management innovations, water management innovation,irrigation system innovation and moisture deficiency protection related innovation areimportant to adapt to climate change. 70.7% of the farmers expected water managementinnovation to cope with climate change, where only 8.1% disagreed. Further, 70.2% of thefarmers mention irrigation system innovation was required to adapt to climate change,where only 7.1% disagree (Table 5). Furthermore, 72.2% of the farmers emphasized on theneed for moisture deficiency protection innovations, while only 4.5%mentioned it was not thatimportant. 68.7% of the farmers reported that development of new crops or finding out varietiesof crops, or innovation of climate change tolerant crops were needed to cope with changingclimate, where only 9.1% felt it was not important to cope with changing climate factors.

Among different types of information related supports, farmers mostly expect earlywarning system for the changes in climate factors, accurate and timely forecasting system,and proper guidelines and suggestion to cope with climate change properly. Betterinformation system for early warning about changes in climate factors was consideredimportant by 80.8% of the farmers, while only 4% did not see it as important. Moreover,72.2% of the farmers agreed that weather forecast was also important to adapt to climatechange, whereas only 5.1% feel it is not necessary. The highest number of the farmers(80.8%) emphasized on the importance of proper guidelines and suggestions to adapt toclimate change properly. However, 4.5% felt it was not important.

Among the financial and relevant other external supports from government, NGOs andother local and international agencies, raw materials subsidy, cash incentive, insurance orminimum income protection etc. from any external agencies are important to cope withclimate change. Raw materials subsidy and cash incentive were found necessary and

Table 4 Statistical output (Eq. 2) for farmers’ ability of adaptation on required external supports

Category of supports Independentvariables

Coefficient (β) z-stat P-value Odd ratio

Innovation Related Supports V1 0.126 0.586 0.558 1.135

V2 −0.153 −0.706 0.480 0.858

V3 0.263∼ 1.912 0.056 1.301

V4 −0.200∼ −1.744 0.081 0.819

Information Related Supports V5 0.068 0.502 0.616 1.071

V6 0.025 0.189 0.850 1.026

V7 −0.207 −1.365 0.172 0.813

Financial Supports V8 0.086 0.579 0.562 1.090

V9 0.596* 3.642 0.000 1.815

V10 −0.206 −1.468 0.142 0.814

Encouraging Supports V11 −0.478* −2.622 0.009 0.620

Production Practice Related Supports V12 −0.139 −1.242 0.214 0.870

V13 0.198 1.298 0.194 1.219

V14 0.297^ 2.527 0.012 1.345

V15 0.130 1.250 0.211 1.138

The notation *, ^, and ∼ indicates the variable is statistically significant at the 1%, 5% and 10% significancelevel, respectively

The Odd ratio is calculated as (e^β )

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186 181

needed for 79.8% of the farmers to cope with climate change impacts. Though for 7.6%farmers, it was not import (Table 6). Among those who needed raw materials subsidy 54%of farmers emphasized it as very important, and among those who need cash incentive 47%mention it was very important to cope with climate change. 78.3% emphasized oninsurance supports or minimum income ensuring supports to adapt to climate change; only4% feel it was not necessary.

Among different encouraging relevant supports, proper infrastructural supports, such astransportation and irrigation, are important for farmers to adapt to changes in climate

Table 5 Innovation and information related required external supports for adaptation to climate change

Types of supports Observation scalea Averagevalue ofscale

S.D. Agreed(4 & 5)observation

Disagreed(1 & 2)observation1 2 3 4 5

Water managementInnovations

5 11 42 40 100 4.11 1.08 140 16

2.5% 5.6% 21.2% 20.2% 50.5% 70.7% 8.1%

Irrigation SystemInnovations

5 9 45 40 99 4.11 1.06 139 14

2.5% 4.5% 22.7% 20.2% 50% 70.2% 7.1%

Moisture DeficiencyRelated Innovations

4 5 46 72 71 4.02 0.94 143 9

2% 2.5% 23.2% 36.4% 35.9% 72.2% 4.5%

Crop Development 7 11 44 54 82 3.97 1.09 136 18

3.5% 5.6% 22.2% 27.3% 41.4% 68.7% 9.1%

Early Warning aboutWeather andClimate Information

4 4 30 58 102 4.26 0.93 160 8

2% 2% 15.2% 29.3% 51.5% 80.8% 4%

Daily and SeasonalWeather Forecasts

6 4 45 60 83 4.06 1 143 10

3% 2% 22.7% 30.3% 41.9% 72.2% 5.1%

Proper Guidelinesor Suggestion

6 3 29 70 90 4.19 0.95 160 9

3% 1.5% 14.6% 35.4% 45.5% 80.8% 4.5%

a Scale: 1 = Strongly Not Needed, 2 = Not Needed, 3 = Not Sure, 4 = Needed, 5 = Strongly Needed

Table 6 Required financial and encouraging external supports for adaptation to climate change

Types of supports Observation scalea Averagevalue ofscale

S.D. Agreed(4 & 5)observation

Disagreed(1 & 2)observation1 2 3 4 5

Raw materialssubsidy

5 10 25 51 107 4.24 1.02 158 15

2.5% 5.1% 12.6% 25.8% 54% 79.8% 7.6%

Cash Incentive 7 8 25 65 93 4.16 1.03 158 15

3.5% 4% 12.6% 32.8% 47% 79.8% 7.6%

Insurance Support 7 1 35 83 72 4.07 0.94 155 8

3.5% 0.5% 17.7% 41.9% 36.4% 78.3% 4%

InfrastructuralSupport, suchas Irrigation,Transportation

7 5 30 43 113 4.26 1.04 156 12

3.5% 2.5% 15.2% 21.7% 57.1% 78.8% 6.1%

a Scale: 1 = Strongly Not Needed, 2 = Not Needed, 3 = Not Sure, 4 = Needed, 5 = Strongly Needed

182 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186

factors. 78.8% of the farmers agreed about the necessity of infrastructure related supportswhereas 6.1% mention it was not at all important.

Among the production practices related supports, diversify crop types, improve varietiesof crops, change land usage patterns, change wage and leasing system, and mergeindividual farmers to farm are important supports to enable farmers adjust to climatechanges. Many farmers (27.3%) considered diversifying crop types and varieties of cropswere not necessary to cope with climate change; however 51% farmers considered thisneeded to adapt to climate change (Table 7). 71.7% emphasized on importance of landusage pattern to cope with climate change. Only 5.6% felt it was not necessary.

73.2% of the farmers mentioned that the leasing system and agricultural wage wereimportant factors toward adaptation to climate change, whereas only 8.1% did not see it asimportant. To adapt to climate change, 71.2% of the farmers thought merger of individualfarmers into single, large farms, was necessary, 12.1% do not agree.

Among different types of external supports, the farmers setup the priority of supportsbased on the perceived importance of each categorical support to adapt to climate change(Table 8). Farmers firstly needed financial and encouraging supports (agreed by 41.9%).Secondly, they needed information related supports (agreed by 32.3%). Thirdly, they neededresource management innovation related supports (agreed by 31.3%.) Fourthly, they neededcrop development related supports (agreed by 33.8%). Finally, they need production practicerelated supports (agreed by 43.4%). The priority setup is based on the highest number of choicefor each category, which differs among farmers based on individual necessities.

6 Conclusion and recommendations

Like in many other countries, changes in climatic factors have negative impacts onproductivity of paddy cultivation in Malaysia. Projections of climatic change and itsadverse effects on paddy productivity and socioeconomic status of the farmers are alarming.In this regard, an adaptation is essential in the long run for agricultural and livelihoodsustainability. To improve the adaptability of the farmers, government and other agenciescontinuously increase the subsidy as well as other supports. At the same time, farmers also

Table 7 Production practice relevant required supports for adaptation to climate change

Types of supports Observation scalea Averagevalue ofscale

S.D. Agreed(4 & 5)observation

Disagreed(1 & 2)observation1 2 3 4 5

Diversify CropTypes andVarieties

6 48 43 31 70 3.56 1.28 101 54

3% 24.2% 21.7% 15.7% 35.4% 51% 27.3%

Adjustment inLand Use Pattern

5 6 45 63 79 4.04 0.99 142 11

2.5% 3% 22.7% 31.8% 39.9% 71.7% 5.6%

Adjustment inWage andLeasing System

7 9 37 46 99 4.12 1.09 145 16

3.5% 4.5% 18.7% 23.2% 50% 73.2% 8.1%

Merge IndividualFarmers to Farm

7 17 33 70 71 3.91 1.09 141 24

3.5% 8.6% 16.7% 35.4% 35.9% 71.2% 12.1%

a Scale: 1 = Strongly Not Needed, 2 = Not Needed, 3 = Not Sure, 4 = Needed, 5 = Strongly Needed

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186 183

expect different types of new supports. So this study tries to measure the current level ofadaptability of paddy producing farmers based on current level of supports and expectednew supports.

The study found that none of the external supports except the accessibility in the market—tobuy fertilizer, pesticides and other necessaries from market—is statistically significantly relatedwith the current adaptation ability of farmers. It indicates farmers’ belief that buying additionalfertilizer from market is not important for their current adaptability with climate change.Though 58.6% of the farmers agree that government supports are enough to cope properly withclimate change, 12.1% of farmers are not able to cope with climate change with the current levelof supports. Beyond the current level of supports, farmers also expect several other types of newsupports. But the statistical output for the necessity of extra supports in respect of their currentability to adaptation shows very low odd ratio, indicating that the expected new supports are notinfluencing the farmers’ current adaptability. Farmers expected new supports might be relatedwith their future adaptability. At the same time, farmers also prioritize on their expected newsupports. This will help policymaker to determine the future supports for climatic changeadaptation for agricultural sector.

Since sustainability of agriculture and farmers’ livelihood are strongly dependent on thesubsidy and support in Malaysia, and the present level of farmers’ adaptability to climatechange lacks behind the expected level, there is a need for additional support and efforts bythe government and other agencies beyond the current strategies of subsidy and incentives.Adaptation to climate change is a broad issue. It needs to be undertaken at many levels,including at the household and community levels. Many of these initiatives are self-funded(Stern 2007). Farmers also need training and conceptual supports.

To enable farmers to adapt to climate change, the very first important step required is tomake them aware of future risks of climate change, especially climate change relatedsocioeconomic vulnerabilities. It will help them prepare their mindset to deal with climatechange and other socioeconomic stresses and think about how to respond in adversesituations. Moreover, the production practices of farms and individual farmers are needed tobe kept up to date with the changes in climatic factors. They should also take allprecautions and be aware of the uncertainty of low rainfall and heavy rainfall. They must becareful in arranging proper water management, both in terms of irrigation facilities and

Table 8 Priority of required supports for adaptation to climate change

Types of supports Priority position Average valueof scalea

1 2 3 4 5

Financial and Encouraging 83 34 39 34 8 2.24

41.9% 17.2% 19.7% 17.2% 4% (1)

Information System 51 64 32 33 18 2.51

25.8% 32.3% 16.2% 16.7% 9.1% (2)

Resource Management Innovations 35 41 62 21 39 2.94

17.7% 20.7% 31.3% 10.6% 19.7% (3)

Crop Development 14 34 36 67 47 3.5

7.1% 17.2% 18.2% 33.8% 23.7% (4)

Production Practices 15 25 29 43 86 3.81

7.6% 12.6% 14.6% 21.7% 43.4% (5)

a The priority position from most important to least important as 1 to 5 is given in the parenthesis

184 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186

quick water logout facilities. Apart from that, they also need to understand the importanceof proper timing and react quickly at the sight of upcoming rainfall events.

As the supply of irrigation water and changing crop cycle are emerging problems in theIADA North-West Selangor, farmers should be informed about crop rotation, crop portfolioand crop substitutions to address the environmental variations and economic risksassociated with climate change, especially for near future. Moreover, they need to utilizeland properly and change the locations of crop production, if possible, to cope with extremecases. Further, they need to adapt to the changing length of growing seasons and associatedchanges in climate factors.

The financial management of farms and farmers too needs to be secured for a minimumof two seasons so that if crop is damaged in one season, they will be prepared and have theseeds for next season; their ability to bear the cost of another crop production will guaranteetheir survival financially up to the collection of the new crops. Currently heavy rainfall andstorm is a very common phenomenon in the study area. For that reason, farmers should takethe initiative for crop sharing, forward rating, hedging and insurance. Farmers also needcrop insurance facilities, but no such option is currently available. Moreover, they need totake income stabilization programmes, such as portfolio of investment, saving scheme,minimum income protection by government or insurance to reduce the risk of income lossdue to changing climatic conditions and variability. At last, it has been suggested to preparea planned and proactive adaptation strategy in Malaysia to secure sound functioning of theeconomic, social and agricultural system.

The need for climatic change adaptation supports depend on the intensity of climaticeffects which is mostly geographical area specific. Due to the location specific limitation,the findings of the study may not be appropriate for other regions, but it will help the policymakers to determine the supports for climate change adaptation in paddy production as wellas agriculture sector, in Malaysia.

Acknowledgement We are thankful to Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment of theGovernment of Malaysia for generously funding the research, under the Research University Grant (UKM-GUP-PI-08-34-081). We would also like to thank Dr. Wahid Murad (University of Adelaide, Australia) for hisadvices and supports at various stages of the study.

References

Agriculture Statistical Handbook (2008) Paddy. Ministry of Agriculture, MalaysiaAlam MM, Siwar C, Toriman ME (2010a) Socioeconomic study of climate change: an assessment of

agriculture and livelihood sustainability on paddy farming in Malaysia. LAP Lambert Academic,Saarbrucken

Alam MM, Siwar C, Murad MW, Molla RI, Toriman ME (2010b) Socioeconomic profile of farmer inMalaysia: study on integrated agricultural development area in North-West Selangor. Agr EconRural Dev 7(2):249–265, ftp://www.ipe.ro/RePEc/iag/iag_pdf/AERD1013_249-265.pdf. Cited 05Aug 2011

Alam MM, Talib B, Siwar C, Toriman ME (2010c) The impacts of climate change on paddy production inMalaysia: case of paddy farming in North-West Selangor. Proceedings of the international conference ofthe 4th International Malaysia- Thailand Conference on South Asian Studies. National University ofMalaysia, Malaysia, Mar 25–26

Alam MM, Siwar C, Molla RI, Toriman ME, Talib B (2010d) Socioeconomic impacts of climatic change onpaddy cultivation: an empirical investigation in Malaysia. J Knowl Globalization 3(2):71–84, http://journals.sfu.ca/jkg/index.php/journal/article/view/57/44. Cited 05 Aug 2011

Alam MM, Siwar C, Al-Amin AQ (2010e) Climate change adaptation policy guidelines for agriculturalsector in Malaysia. Asian J Environ Disast Manag 2(4):463–469. doi:10.3850/S1793924011000873

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186 185

Alam MM, Toriman ME, Siwar C, Talib B (2011a) Rainfall variation and changing pattern of agriculturalcycle. Am J Environ Sci 7:82–89. doi:10.3844/ajessp.2011.82.89

Alam MM, Siwar C, Molla RI, Toriman ME, Talib B (2011b) Climate change and vulnerability of paddycultivation in North-West Selangor, Malaysia: a survey of farmers’ assessment. Voice of Academia 6(1):45–56

Alam MM, Siwar C, Talib B, Toriman ME (2011c) An Empirical Study on the relationships between thesocioeconomic profile of farmers and paddy productivity in North-West Selangor, Malaysia. Asia PacDev J 18(1). http://www.unescap.org/pdd/publications/index_apdj.asp. Cited 05 Aug 2011

Alam MM, Mohd Ekhwan T, Siwar C, Molla RI, Talib B (2011d) The impacts of agricultural supports forclimate change adaptation: farm level assessment study on paddy farmers. Am J Environ Sci 7(2):178-182. doi:10.3844/ajessp.2011.82.89

Baker JT, Allen LH Jr (1993) Contrasting crop species responses to CO2 and temperature: rice, soybean andcitrus. Vegetatio 104/105:239–260, http://www.jstor.org/pss/20029749. Cited 05 Aug 2011

Behringer J, Buerki R, Fuhrer J (2000) Participatory integrated assessment of adaptation to climate change inAlpine tourism and mountain agriculture. Integr Assess 1:331–338. doi:10.1023/A:1018940901744

Brown K, Few R, Tompkins EL (2007) Climate change and coastal management decisions: insights fromChristchurch Bay, UK. Coast Manag 35(2–3):255–270. doi:10.1080/08920750601042328

Downing TE, Ringius L, Hulme M, Waughray D (1997) Adapting to climate change in Africa. Mitig AdaptStrateg Glob Chang 2:19–44. doi:10.1023/B:MITI.0000004663.31074.64

Eisenack K, Kropp J (2006) Regional stakeholder perceptions of climate change: Baltic case study screening.ASTRA document, Potsdam. http://www.pik-potsdam.de/∼eisenack/downloads/CSSreport-fd.pdf. Cited05 Aug 2011

EisenackK, TekkenV, Kropp J (2007) Stakeholder perceptions of climate change in the Baltic Sea Region. CoastlineReports 8:245–255, http://spicosa.databases.eucc-d.de/files/documents/00000816_Eisenack_Tekken_Kropp.pdf. Cited 05 Aug 2011

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation andvulnerability. IPCC third assessment report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Malaysia (2006) Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006–2010. Economic Planning Unit, Putrajaya, p 559. http://www.parlimen.gov.my/news/eng-ucapan_rmk9.pdf. Cited 05 Aug 2011

NAHRIM (2006) Final report: study of the impact of climate change on the hydrologic regime and waterresources of peninsular Malaysia, National Hydraulic Research Institute of Malaysia (NAHRIM) andCalifornia Hydrologic Research Laboratory (CHRL), Malaysia. http://www.nahrim.gov.my/download/pksa/RegHCM_PM_Report_9_21_06_Ex%20v1.pdf. Cited 05 Aug 2011

NRS (2001) National response strategies to climate change. Ministry of Science, Technology and theEnvironment, Malaysia. http://gedung.nahrim.gov.my/wapi/mctweb.dll/getObject?MID=WATER%20RESOURCES&Sn=2038. Cited 05 Aug 2011

Singh S, Amartalingam R, Wan Harun WS, Islam MT (1996) Simulated impact of climate change on riceproduction in Peninsular Malaysia. Proceeding of National Conference on Climate Change. UPM,Malaysia, pp 41–49

Siwar C, Alam MM, Murad MW, Al-amin AQ (2009) A review of the linkages between climate change,agricultural sustainability and poverty in Malaysia. Int Rev Bus Res Papers 5(6):309–321, http://www.bizresearchpapers.com/23.%20Siwar.pdf. Cited 05 Aug 2011

Smit B, Skinner MW (2002) Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitig AdaptStrateg Glob Chang 7:85–114. doi:10.1023/A:1015862228270

Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeTashiro T, Wardlaw IF (1989) A comparison of the effect of high temperature on grain development in wheat

and rice. Ann Bot 64:59–65Tisdell C (1996) Economic indicators to assess the sustainability of conservation farming projects: an

evaluation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 57(2):117–131UNDP (2005) In: Lim B, Spanger-Siegfred E (eds) Adaptation policy framework for climate change:

developing policies strategies and measures. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeYohe G, Tol RSJ (2001) Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working

definition of adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Chang 12:25–40

186 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2012) 17:173–186